By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LurkerJ on 10 April 2018
Edit Thread
Helloplite said:

A Youtube link?

Of an uneducated Canadian alt-right provocateur? 

Of someone who has known ties to the nazi-group English Defence League?

She distributed anti-Muslim leaflets outside areas of Luton with high Muslim populations (Luton has almost 25% Muslim population). She was not banned from entering the UK for believing that Allah is having sex with Jesus, but for the following:

A person who uses threatening or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if:
(1) s/he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(2) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. 

First of all, I didn't realize the word GAY is insulting or abusive. But good to know we're willing to go that far to please the Muslims. If the word GAY stirs up racial hatred, the burden is on the people who are riled up in this situation to wise up and read a book or two that isn't called the Quran. 

More importantly, what about Muslims teaching their youngsters that homosexuality is one of the greatest sins a man can commit? What about the hatred stirred by Islamic teachings against homosexuals? And don't tell me those teachings don't stir up racial hatred 

.. and please don't tell me hatred against homosexuals isn't racial hatred, because Islam isn't a race in the first place. 

This has been the law in the UK since 1986, so it would have also happened 10 and 20 and 30 years ago. In this case, this individual traveled to the UK with her sole purpose being to go to Luton, find a community of Muslims, and throw around ridiculous leaflets meant to agitate the local community. She was not banned for saying that Allah is gay. She was banned for "intending to stir up racial hatred" which is exactly what she was doing, and which is further proven by her ties to English Defense League. Also of note is the fact that she was not arrested in any way. She was allowed to stay as normal, and was only banned after leaving the country. In fact, the relevant law is extremely lax, as the maximum sentence for such an act (which was not given in this case) is 6 months imprisonment. Since her sole purpose of travel was to incite hatred, it was also the right decision to keep her away as the UK does not need Canadians traveling to Luton and throwing pamphlets around. 

I am for free speech, I've said that plenty enough. Assuming that was her goal, I don't have problem with it. If you want her banned for what she's doing, why aren't you suggesting similar actions against the hateful Islamic teachings?


Do you want to genuinely know more about the UK? In the UK, the English Defense League exists and is allowed to operate, despite constant links to guns, violence, and attacks against other groups. When particular individuals do something hateful, then these individuals are tried and fined or sent to the prison. But the group as a whole is allowed to exist and politically assert its opposition to the spread of Islam in the UK. This is the spirit of free speech. When Islamists seeking to exact "revenge on the enemies of Allah" plotted to bomb an English Defence League march they were caught, tried and sentenced to 18 to 20 years in prison. Because there is a distinction between free speech, hate speech, and criminal activity.

If you cannot understand law, or even basic essentials of jurisprudence, you should not be commenting at all. Otherwise you end up showing just how little you understand about the topic. 

And you seem to be unable to understand how Islamic teachings stir up a more dangerous, and actually real, racial hatred, and as a result, you're unwilling to recognize the problem of how to problematic it is to try identify hate speech, and which should be banned and which shouldn't.